Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Sage advice, Stephen. But, it rings true only to those who already know it. It either whizzes overhead like a jet for those who want validation of preaccepted opinions, or it rings hollow to those who view it as tainted by virtue of the source - a liberal.

I think you are preaching to the choir, here. I used to hold out hope that improvements in our educational system would elevate more citizens to the level of understanding and accepting your sage advice. But, of late, it appears our educational system is going in the other direction with creationism and prayer in schools and charter schools for those of a particular ideological bent.

David, we should not lose hope. We just shouldn’t rely on the rest of the world to fulfill those hopes in the face of our passivity. People will fight to cover up the truth. We Americans, regardless of what column we post under must fight to regain it.

Stephen, we first must know that our numbers are sufficient to make the changes necessary. Without that confidence, or at least hope of building such numbers, we will be acting like mosquitoes on an elephant, no pun intended.

I don’t believe it goes over people’s heads. I think it registers fine. I don’t believe we’re that stupid of a people and I won’t accept that people don’t understand the idea. And for me to have full faith in the notion, I have to believe that. It is very easy to lose faith in the intelligence of people out there, and easy from there to start insulting it.

One interesting result I heard about was that many of the people who didn’t vote in this election didn’t vote because they felt the politics didn’t matter. This has become a nation in a haze, and giving up on punching a light through that haze is letting this fog dissolve our world away.

I write not just to exhort my fellow Democrats to do the right thing, but to persuade those on the right and elsewhere of the importance of the matters I discuss. We will never fully convert the right. I don’t think we’d want to, in the end. But they are people, ordinary, just like us, who often share more values with us than they would suppose at first thought.

Even while we disagree on certain subjects, I do believe there are points of honor, morality, and ultimately law and order that we should agree on. Unfortunately, the political debate has become about direct opposition, rather than the complex sort of patterns of life that really govern it, the kind I described and discussed in Tumblers in The Lock of Time.

I think it’s time that we start from a better foundation of political discussion. Denial of our opponent’s capacity to reason will not help us persuade them that there are compelling reasons to agree with us.

Stephen, you apparently don’t listen to C-span’s Washington Journal call in segments every morning. The abject lack of intelligence and facts by some of the callers is unbelievable.

I understand though your desire to keep the bright shining promise ahead of you for motivation and keeping hope alive. But, democracy really does absolutely require an informed voting public. We have structured a society here where information by virtue of volume and contrariness, actually misinforms and hides truth, fact, and reality at all levels from the Whitehouse down to parenting.

That is why my only hope rests in education, objective, secular, and empirically fact oriented education. Not that there isn’t an important place for arts, religion, and humanities, but, this nation, all nations, have simply got to commit themselves totally to upgrading the critical and analytical thinking skills of their populations. India, China, Japan, S. Korea, Malaysia, and others all making this commitment. The writing is on the wall…

Your series of articles were enlightening in the manner you intended. But persuasive? Perhaps, for those predisposed.

I am not advocating insulting the intelligence or education of opposing poitical sides. Far from it. I am proposing that our nation pour its heart and soul into education, the kind of education that our future will demand of us whether we are prepared or not.

David

As you know, I am optimistic, so you can take this as you like.

The American democratic free market system does not require our entire populace be informed on all or even most issues. On the contrary, it works by aggregating individual knowledge and wisdom into something better than expert opinion. That has been the secret to our success for more than two centuries and it is also the reason that for more than two centuries experts have been predicting our imminent demise.

I have driven across our great country from coast to coast five times. I stop off and talk to people about “things”. I am always surprised and humbled by the many things people know. I remember talking with some good old boys in Amarillo Texas about international trade in commodities. They didn’t know about a lot of things, but they knew their business and their business was grain, so they understood international commodities. I remember some dirty old guy in Arizona explaining the healthy forest initiative to me. Just a couple of days ago the guy who came to service my air conditioner explained the meaning of privacy in the U.S. Constitution. In none of these cases would these guys pass a general test on politics. But when you put them all together they make good choices. It works like the market works - always better than a panel of experts. You just can’t invite this general intelligence onto C-Span.

It has also been my experience that polymaths usually can’t do much of anything in particular and the most pernicious and worst run organizations are university departments managed by guys with the big brains.

I agree with you on education, by the way, but we have to make sure it is the right kind and not too PC.

I wonder, Jack, do you not feel that the executive branch of our government has been consistently gaining power over the past two centuries? Do we not become more dependent on that centralized power with every war, with every passing day? I’m not one to talk about doom and the end of our ‘democratic’ system, but I do think that we are steadily working our way down that path.

This can change, certainly it can change. But, with people such as G.W. in power, it will not. Our slow degradation into, dare I say it, tyranny, will not be slowed down unless we are actively doing something about it. Personally, I think the OSI would be a nice place to start, though in some respects I feel it lacks practicality.

So in short, while I do not feel that we are in imminent danger of destruction from within, America is far from where we would like it to be, and things need to change if we are to become the model nation we once were.

Zeek

Not consistently, but yes the central power of the Feds has been growing. We should return more power to the states and localities. We can start by appointing less activist judges, who will interpret the Constitution strictly, and especially respect the 10th amendment, get rid of many of the Federal mandates, such as ADA, and generally accept that true diversity means that people of different states will live under somewhat different laws.

It is not President Bush that has pushed the Feds into too many parts of U.S. life. I am buying a piece of forestland in rural Virginia and I have to worry about various Federal regulations. I just hope that they don’t find any endangered species on my property (at least not before I have).

We ask too much of our central government. People should be more self or locally reliant. Start with personal retirement accounts and go from there.

I find it funny that a Democrat is talking about increased Federal power. Aren’t they the ones who want the Federal Government to solve all of the world’s problems?

find it funny that a Democrat is talking about increased Federal power. Aren’t they the ones who want the Federal Government to solve all of the world’s problems?

Umm… No. And I think recognizing that kind of Republican propaganda is what Stephen’s talking about in his article.

The American democratic free market system does not require our entire populace be informed on all or even most issues.

True, but it sure does make Republican demagoguery effective. :)

Seriously, I’ve read wacko liberal conspiracy theorists who contend that the Republican elites only want wealth and power concentrated in the hands of “the right kind of people.” It’s statements like that, Jack, that give those conspiracies legs. Whatever happened to Jefferson’s informed electorate?

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

The Choir says: Good article Stephen.

I am not saying the electorate should not be informed. On the contrary, they should be informed very deeply but about what affects them. But nobody can be sufficiently informed about everything and it is foolish to try. I mentioned talking to those good old boys in Texas about commodities. I bet that this blog features professor and professionals, but I bet none of us could go toe-to-toe with these guys on commodities.

And what does it mean to be informed. The guy I talked to about the Constitution (as I wrote about above) was a fundamentalist Christian would used his knowledge to attack Roe v Wade. Many would call him ignorant. He certainly was not.

I personally am a generalist. I know a little about a lot. I think this is a good thing. But I am really glad that not everyone follows my lead. I wouldn’t want to cross a bridge built by someone like me, who knew a little about everything and maybe a little less about concrete and steel.

Jack, you have to be careful with that power-to-the-local government idea. Yes, it will be more efficient, but it can allow for greater abuse of the Constitution. You need to make sure that there are national standards so that no matter where you go in the country you will have the same rights. But again, I do agree that the micromanaging of our country is best done at the micro level.

National standards should not be the same everywhere. That is the nature of federalism. The Constitution can be interpreted narrowly or broadly. I am for a stricter interpretation that leaves more leeway to the states and the people.

We obviouly do not have the same rights wherever we go. A voter in Wyoming is worth more than a voter in California and a crime that will bring the death penalty in Texas might get you parolled in twenty year in Wisconsin. I have no trouble with that.

Too much freedom has been lost in the name of equality.

Jack, that’s not the kind of equality I was talking about… Voter worth, criminal punishment, and strict or broad Constitutional interpretation were not the things I was talking about, but I understand that your, er, preoccupation with them would cause you to misinterpret my call for equality. Perhaps you feel that the issue of gay marriage or abortions applies differently to one area or another but they really don’t.

Too much freedom has been lost in the name of equality.

Stop trying to make me out as a revolutionary, Jack. I’m not trying to take away anyone’s freedom here though you seem very happy to insinuate that. Tell me, Jack, just what is it about equal rights that bugs you so much?

Jack:

“We ask too much of our central government. People should be more self or locally reliant.”

I agree. I would add that most people overestimate a central governments effect on their pocketbook and society.

Here is one of the many areas where I break from the current “conservative” leadership. Conservatism is supposed to be about more local control, yet, especially with the extreme right Christian leadership, it appears more control and “guidance” is thrust on the localities by the growing feds every day.

I also agree that the federal govt has a role to keep relative, but not perfect consistancy.

From a conservative (non-republican)

Well I could not see any american putting our men serving our country for the right or wrong reasons down.Our service mens job is just protect our democracy. Thats whats so bizzare about this war.We started to protect us from weapons of mass destruction but when none could be found it was to provide a democracy for the people of iraq.Well if someone would please correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t a demoracy supposed to be by the people. I think if that is true and the iraq people wanted this they would have done it themself. I keep reading american history to see who threw the english out of america so we would be a democracy ourselfs but as yet I only see our forfathers dying for our liberities maybe a few mercenaries but not a country per say. We as a the poster child for democracy must quit acting like a dictator as we cry democracy. I can’t believe we have been pulling this con off on the rest of the world as long as we have.